Re: Getting into MIT is impossible

can any kind soul tell me, what are the SAT scores needed to be in the top
10%, top 1%, and top 0.1% of all the students who take these tests?

thank you

igor

Anonymous wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> According to Rick Osborne:
> 
> "I disagree and can speak from experience.  I was denied admission to MIT
> even thought I had a 3.82 GPA, 1440 SAT (one try), and had taken 9 AP tests
> with two 5's, four 4's, two 3's, and one 2.  As for being well-rounded, I
> was on several academic teams, sang in Chorus, acted and stage managed in
> Drama, and played Tennis."
> 
> People get into MIT--or don't get into MIT--for lots of reasons. Most
> intelligent people apply to several schools, knowing that admissions
> practices are subject to the vagaries of reality.
> 
> In my case, my SATs were about 1500, with some 800s in achievement tests.
> And the usual bullshit high school clubs, political offices, etc. etc. I
> was accepted by MIT, but not by Caltech. I didn't lose any sleep over the
> way things turned out.
> 
> And I decided not to go to MIT, either.
> 
> "The only thing I didn't have that the next MIT applicant had was money.  I
> made the mistake of letting them know that I was dirt poor and would need
> full aid/grants/etc, and to quote "The Great Escape" it was "Zzzt! To the
> Russian front!""
> 
> My guess is that "other factors" were involved. 
> 
> I noted with some interest, but little surprise, that the guy claiming MIT
> required a 4.0 GPA and a 1600 combined SAT score could barely spell, and
> had major problems making a coherent point. Methinks this is why MIT
> rejected him, not his lack of a "1600."
> 
> ">For what it's worth, I wanted to go to MIT my sophomore year in high
> >school, too
> 
> "Lucky you.  It had been a dream of mine since I was an annoying
> overachiever of 6.  Sux to be white trash, I guess."
> 
> MIT offered me a substantial economic aid package, in the form of loans,
> grants, and various campus jobs. What does this tell you?
> 
> "MIT may be a great school, but they tend to be snooty assholes for the most
> part.  (DISCLAIMER: Not all MIT grads/attendees are necessarily "snooty
> assholes", I'm just saying that I've yet to meet one that wasn't.)
> 
> I've known about a dozen or so MIT grads, and only one of them was a snooty
> asshole, and it was a _she_, one of the first MIT women grads (and she was
> _very_ impressed by this). 
> 
> Most MIT grads are perfectly reasonable.
> 
> Xanthar
> 
> 
> 
> 
> --
> 



	- Igor.

ichudov@algebra.com wrote:
> 
> can any kind soul tell me, what are the SAT scores needed to be in
> the top 10%, top 1%, and top 0.1% of all the students who take these
> tests?

I'm not sure what this has to do with, well, anything, but here goes.

Scores from before April 1995 are not comparable to scores today because 
the method of scoring has changed to recenter the distribution. The 99th 
percentile starts at 1440 for women and 1490 for men. Full stats at
http://www.collegeboard.org/sat/html/topsrs29.html

Please note that this is for "college-bound seniors." It's not a stat 
that applies to the general population (i.e., 1490+ is the top 1% of the 
elite 30% or so that go to college), and it doesn't include people who 
were satisfied with the score they got the beginning of their junior 
year, and didn't take it again (i.e., me).

I don't know about MIT, but I'd think that their numbers would be even 
higher than those for Stanford, because MIT doesn't recruit football 
players. Some of Stanford's numbers are at 
http://www-portfolio.stanford.edu/105549

MIT and the like aren't impossible. Fucking elitist, yes. Worth it? 
Probably, though two of my closest and most intelligent friends have no 
college degrees at all. Of course, they had to earn people's respect, 
whereas I had people recruiting me based largely on the fact that I 
still had a pulse five years after taking the SAT. What counts is what 
people want you to do five years after that.

-rich